The answer is not that women are bees, but that women are mormon bees.

All women.

All of them.

For serious.

MONOLITHIC MORMON BEES.

I'm Mormon. (Sort of.)

My name means "bee."

I still think Twilight sucks.

But it seems like Stephanie Meyer, through the process of writing and being successful, may have started her own actual feminist awakening. And MoFems (yeah, yeah, I know, but it's a thing,) would be kinda crazy not to accept her into the ranks considering she is a successful and independent Mormon woman. So there's that.

I still think Twilight sucks.

BEE!

I think part of it is also like how romance novels are (or at least were) empowering for some women. The book "Beyond Heaving Bosoms" had a lot to say about how books where the heroine was raped removed the social stigma against her willingly engaging in sex - so then the reader could explore sexuality without that shame. Which is just totally bizarre, but after reading that I can understand a lot more why romance novels are the way they are. They are still problematic, but I can see at least some people are getting some good out of them.

I feel the same about Twilight - except of course that other less problematic stuff is pushed aside in favor of publishing things like this.

Yeah, I hear you. It's clear that it's filling some genuine unmet need. It's junk food, filling that need, but it's still better to look at what the need is and see how it can be filled with healthier fare, rather than to condemn a lot of women for liking junk food.

Yeup. Gettin' pretty sick of this idea that women are some sort of weird "other" that need to be studied and dissected.

It all stems from the idea that "men and women are biologically different, men are rational while women are emotional, men are from Mars while women are from Jupiter and thus we have absolutely no means of EVER even DREAMING of being capable of understanding the other gender".

Please don't ask me why I know this concept, I don't remember, I don't know, and I wish I didn't know it. But it does exist, and it enables all the stupid shit that a bunch of sexist bastards do, from 'nice guys' through domestic violence to rape. All of it.

i believe women are actually supposed to be from venus.

i wish we were from jupiter, then we would have lightning bolts to throw at people._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

However, Mormons are the largest Christian group to reject the idea of a Trinity in favor of a Godhead. It is still true that most people claiming to be Christians keep the idea of the trinity to avoid Monolatrism and Polytheism._________________A MtG Webcomic

Last edited by Lich Mong on Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:38 pm; edited 1 time in total

Ohhh...that makes sense. They don't want to be seen as worshipping two gods, so they just say there's a trinity? I wonder if that's why the people trying to explain what the trinity was never seemed to make sense.

Honestly, there is stuff I see about Mormonism that would be positive in the grand scheme of Christianity's progress if the religion weren't so tied up in racism, bigotry, and sexism. I would to look at it like I do the various pagan stuff other people I know believe - something I don't believe, but an interesting part of their outlook on life. The big difference to me really is that there is a large organization with funding and a desire to alter/control the political and legal landscape. So it is hard to just be chill about it even when an awesome person belongs to that religion._________________::lesser crisis mode::

Ohhh...that makes sense. They don't want to be seen as worshipping two gods, so they just say there's a trinity? I wonder if that's why the people trying to explain what the trinity was never seemed to make sense.

Exactly right. Christians want to claim to be Abrahamic and follow Jewish traditions (this was also because in Rome you got religious privileges if you were Jewish ). The original Christians were basically seen as proselytizing Jewish cult.[1]

So, if Jesus was a full fledged Demi-God, it would be pretty hard to justify being Abrahamic, what with the whole bases of Judaism being "worship no other Gods but Yahweh."
So, Christians came up with the workaround that Jesus WAS God, so when they pray to Jesus they're not being unfaithful to Yahweh. But, the whole "God killed Himself to forgive us to Himself and then brought Himself back to life" has its own share of problems...

stripeypants wrote:

Honestly, there is stuff I see about Mormonism that would be positive in the grand scheme of Christianity's progress if the religion weren't so tied up in racism, bigotry, and sexism.

Mormonism is kinda... Well.... There is a reason so many people say it's not really a Christian religion. The fact they're not Monotheists is only part of it.

Essentially(I'm paraphrasing here; Rune should feel free to correct me, or expand with newer dogma), the prevailing Mormon theory is that God is just one God among many that each have their own planet to watch over. The God that watches over Earth is Elohim(which is why we should only pray to Him, the other Gods don't care about Earth). Our God, Elohim, lives near the celestial body Kolob and has a physical body. God has many wives and is father to both Jesus and Satan (who are brothers, or half brothers). Satan led a rebellion, and got 1/3 of the spirits to follow him.[2]
If you're super extra good in the Mormon religion, when you die you (and your wifes) will get your own planet to be God of. That's how Elohim got Earth, by being a good Mormon somewhere else. [3]

Anyway, of all the groups claiming the title of "Christians" Mormons are pretty different from the rest. I'm not saying their ideas are less legitimate or something, but they're different._________________A MtG Webcomic

Last edited by Lich Mong on Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

Pretty decent paraphrase, though I will add that a lot of the specific details like Kolob are things that the institution is (and has been) distancing itself from, and a lot of that, while it has been accepted and taught by certain individuals and leaders, isn't "canon." Our process for canonization is part of what's all wibbly-wobbly, and you might get a different answer on those details depending on which Mormon you ask, such as God having multiple wives, and the exact nature of what "gaining all God has" means, planet or no. When I was growing up, all of that was taught, at least internally, in pretty unashamed detail. Now, not so much. We really don't -have- any actual theologians to hammer through these things, and things tend to change more through conservative fiat and weight of bureaucracy more than anything else. And nothing ever gets repudiated unless it absolutely HAS to be, like some of the atrocious folk doctrines that arose to explain why the church kept black men from holding the priesthood until 1979, that only just got repudiated last year when someone in a public position dared to say it out loud.

So, you might get different answers on a lot of those details depending on who you ask and what generation they're from.

Right now, it's a group that's much more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy.

I was raised Mormon, and there are things in the tradition that I still find very valuable, but the current 50's-Disney-Corporate organization and glacial approach to change, as well as huge problems the structure is having dealing with ground-up communication and concerns, (not to mention all the feminist and anyone-who-isn't-straight-white-middle-class-republican issues,) have left me pretty much straddling the fence. But, hey, they haven't kicked me out yet.

When I first started typing that I was under the impression that people who's souls had rebelled with Satan were marked with darker skin, according to Mormonism. But, as I looked deeper I wasn't able to find a reference to support this. I found lots of people (like Cain and Lamanite) who turned from God and who's descendants were marked with darker skin, according to Mormonism. But, I did not find anything talking about the souls that sided with Satan.

Can you shed some light on this for me, Rune?_________________A MtG Webcomic

When I first started typing that I was under the impression that people who's souls had rebelled with Satan were marked with darker skin, according to Mormonism. But, as I looked deeper I wasn't able to find a reference to support this. I found lots of people (like Cain and Lamanite) who turned from God and who's descendants were marked with darker skin, according to Mormonism. But, I did not find anything talking about the souls that sided with Satan.

Can you shed some light on this for me, Rune?

Sure. The idea that people with the "mark of Cain," or dark skin, got so as a consequence of their role in the rebellion in heaven is actually the folk doctrine to explain keeping black men from the priesthood that I was talking about, though that's still not the same group as those who sided with Satan. It was just speculated that black people were "less valiant" or "fence-sitters" during that conflict. This is a pernicious bit of folk "doctrine" that arose to explain a policy that was already in place because of regular ol' bigotry. People have been passing this gem around behind the scenes for a while, including some leaders' statements. Randy Bott, a professor from BYU, gets the dubious honor of saying it recently to the broad public, something that the LDS church was quick to distance itself from: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article

Though, again, that's not the 1/3 host that fell. We're taught that those spirits were not given bodies and will never be born, are terribly jealous, are subjects of the Devil, and help with temptations and whatnot.

Though, again, that's not the 1/3 host that fell. We're taught that those spirits were not given bodies and will never be born, are terribly jealous, are subjects of the Devil, and help with temptations and whatnot.

I'll see if I have time tomorrow. There are . . . so many weird intersections and perspectives, some less flattering than others. I'll see what I can do with my fringey-insider's view to figure out where they're coming from.

If you have time, could you let me know about it's accuracy (it's obviously a little bias).

I found that the video is a surprisingly (considering the source) evenhanded discussion of what a Mormon would call the Plan of Salvation, with just a little bit of "folk doctrine" mixed in. (The link is to a semi-official explanation in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, if you're interested.)

The bit at the beginning, where they talk about how Mormons and other Christians can attach entirely different meanings to the same terms is correct, and does lead to a bit of talking past each other. And if you think the label "Christian" is only applicable to faiths that follow the Nicene Creed, then clearly Mormonism does not rate. On the other hand, Mormons do worship, perform every ordinance and say every prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, believe in the resurrection and Atonement, and that the grace of His atoning sacrifice is both required and sufficient for all to attain a state of glory in the afterlife, so it's hard to argue that Mormons are not Christian in that regard.

Mormons don't actually go in for theology much. They regard it as a slightly suspect academic exercise, a poor substitute for the direct knowledge available through revelation. There's also a strong strain of feeling that it's okay not to know every detail now, that it will come in time, or in the hereafter. The fact of the matter is, there is very little in the way of fixed Mormon doctrine that isn't potentially subject to further clarification or even wholesale revision through revelation. Early church leaders were a lot more likely to speculate in public than modern ones are, and a whole bestiary of doctrines have been propounded over the pulpit that are not considered official. This is the usual source of the "folk doctrine" I mentioned earlier. For example, whether Heavenly Father has multiple wives, whether he physically impregnated Mary, and even whether he was once an ordinary mortal man, are definitely not part of the official canon. Certainly some variants are widely believed within the church, and there's something of a heirarchy of folk doctrines, based on who said it and when. Joseph Smith gets the most credit, and he did seem to say that God the Father was once a mortal man like us, but only the part about people being able to become Gods themselves is actually canon. (D&C 132:18-24, to be specific.)

The LDS Church largely runs on policy, not doctrine. Policies can, and sometimes do, change. Whether plural marriage is required to attain the highest level of exaltation was once considered doctrine, and then it was divinely revealed to be a matter of policy. Whether Blacks could hold the priesthood was once considered doctrine, and then it was divinely revealed as a policy that could be changed. There's a strong core of pragmatism to the faith, and it shows. How the faith will adapt to the future is anyone's guess, but adaptability is built in at the roots. The actual doctrines may seem weird (a problem for practically all faiths when seen from the outside) but for the Mormons, that's secondary to living their family-oriented, service-minded, clean-living gospel of Jesus Christ, complete with extra scriptures and living prophets, and sharing it with anyone who will listen. And if you don't want to listen now, well that's okay too. There's always the afterlife._________________The reward for a good life is a good life.

I will add that the organization has been drifting towards a de-emphasis of the "strange" stuff, and has been putting a LOT of effort into PR and presenting as more mainstream Christian these past couple of decades. So, again, the answers on the details that you get might be different depending on the generation of the Mormon you're talking to.

Do you think the FLDS has much to do with that push away from the weirdness? Or maybe just reactions when missionaries go out to talk to people? I recall reading that the missionaries had to change their scripts awhile back._________________::lesser crisis mode::